New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Victims' rights

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2021

B v DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH [2021] NZHC 2392

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2392
Court

High Court

The High Court found the District Court failed to directly consider that the purpose of access (use in foreign Indian proceedings) was relevant to the r12 considerations, particularly r12(d) and r12(h), and remitted the decision for reconsideration so the District Court can have regard to the purpose of the request and evidence of related foreign proceedings when exercising its discretion under the Rules.
23 Oct 2018

R v HENDRIKS [2018] NZCA 447

Citation

[2018] NZCA 447
Court

Court of Appeal

Disclosure that the complainant's mother did not wish suppression of the respondent's identity constituted a sufficient change in circumstances under s 208 CPA to justify revocation of the suppression order because the protective purpose was no longer required.
28 Sept 2018

K v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZHC 2503

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2503
Court

High Court

Dobson J's 2012 minute determined the applicant lacked standing and that determination is binding by issue estoppel; alternatively, even absent estoppel the applicant lacked both personal and public interest standing to judicially review a District Court sentencing decision in criminal proceedings, so the 2017 proceedings are an abuse of process and must be struck out; given delay, abuse of process concerns and automatic child-victim suppression the applicant's and second respondent's identities are suppressed.
27 Nov 2015

OSBORNE & OR v WORKSAFE NZ & OR [2015] NZHC 2991

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2991
Court

High Court

The Prosecution Decision to offer no evidence and discontinue was not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances because prosecutorial discretion attracts high restraint and the record did not establish consideration of an unlawful bargain or failure to observe mandatory considerations; the voluntary $3.41m payment was a permissible public interest factor and no binding agreement to stifle prosecution was proved; Worksafe had regard to statutory objectives including s 5(g); the applicants had no legitimate expectation of prior consultation; the District Court Judge lawfully dismissed th…
18 Mar 2015

REGINA v McDONALD [2015] NZHC 511

Citation

[2015] NZHC 511
Court

High Court

The court accepted the statutory purpose of s203 but, applying NZBORA interpretation, construed 'complainant' to exclude persons killed at the time of the alleged specified sexual offending so as to reduce an unjustified limit on freedom of expression; nonetheless the murdered victim's (Jane's) identity remained suppressed under s202 because the family demonstrated undue hardship; suppression of the kidnap victims was set aside; defendant's letter was released to the Christchurch Star subject to identity suppression.
1 Oct 2008

PRASAD V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV-2008-485-967

Citation

openlaw-e99f8fad_068e_42f0_b0e2_49b347e23b42.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal erred in law by treating the gravity and breadth of fraudulent conduct perpetrated by the mother and stepfather as determinative against these appellants despite their lack of personal culpability and by impermissibly including subsequent separate frauds in the assessment; the error justifies quashing the Tribunal decision and remitting the matters for reconsideration with leave to raise victims' status and counselling needs.

New Zealand Case Law

B v DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH [2021] NZHC 2392

R v HENDRIKS [2018] NZCA 447

K v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2018] NZHC 2503

OSBORNE & OR v WORKSAFE NZ & OR [2015] NZHC 2991

REGINA v McDONALD [2015] NZHC 511

PRASAD V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV-2008-485-967